Transhumanism

[protovack]

The gap between the have and have-nots will grow ever wider, and that alone will introduce an element of sociopolitical strain. Third-Worlders will have to look up to First Worlders for not only money and fast cars, but muscular and nanotech implants as well. This will not be easy.

No tech advances will be instantly shared with everyone on the planet. Should we have stopped people from learning to read in the first world just because it made us wealthier than people who didn't have high literacy levels?

 

[mugen]

i want to augment myself in all sorts of funky ways. however, that will not happen any time soon: there are too many small minded people like the OP who raise all sorts of irritating and banal questions, which they then frequently assert (unilaterally) to be moral and ethical in kind and requiring solution before any more progress can take place. thus even if technology progresses, it'll just get held up by dickholes wringing their hands and going, in chickenshit voices, 'can we really do this? should we really do this? who are we to play god??? WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE (insert random irrelevant minority here)'

having read the summary of the arguments against at wikipedia, i am now of the opinion that transhumanism could be either exceptionally usefully or catastrophically bad. if it were allowed into the hands of the kind of fucknuts who were arguing that it would 'trivialise human identity', be 'playing god', 'erode morality' and so forth, we'd all be fucked. if, however, those people conscientiously objected, all the normal/intelligent ppl would make them rapidly obsolescent and in a beautiful example of darwinian pressures, they'd become extinct.

 

[elemenohpee]

I guess you must have skipped over my post, because I said in there that I agree with almost everything the transhumanists say, I consider myself one. Did you get confused by the fact that there were question marks in there intended to provoke discussion? If you perceive anyone asking questions about this to be small-minded, I find your post highly ironic. Things will go bad if they get into the hands of people like yourself, who want to dive headfirst into the unknown without even considering the potential problems (which many transhumanists recognize as real problems to be dealt with). Maybe try venturing farther than the summary on wikipedia before you start accusing people of things which you know nothing about.

 

[johnmortons]

i am terrified by the idea that seriously intelligence enhancing and life prolonging technology will be developed.

it will be dreadful for the poor (individually and as nation states) to see the rich not only become superior in material possessions and "regular" health, but also much older (immortal!) and super-intelligent. at least now human physiology and mortality provide some basic equality among our race.

since most probably i am not going to live long enough to profit from this technology, i hope that at least i wont have to live to see the first gadgets and operations become available to the super-rich (this is, unless i become super-rich myself, which i don't want to rule out at this point ).

who knows what kind of social tensions this will create (some kind of super-socialism pushing for this technology to become available to everyone; the exploitation of the regular-intelligence folks by the super-intelligent; huge differences in countries; pre-emptive wars between nation states afraid that superior technology of the other states will lead to their permanent superiority if no action is taken etc. etc.)

 

[qwedsa]

it will be dreadful for the poor (individually and as nation states) to see the rich not only become superior in material possessions and "regular" health, but also much older (immortal!) and super-intelligent. at least now human physiology and mortality provide some basic equality among our race.

take a look a couple posts above you..

No tech advances will be instantly shared with everyone on the planet. Should we have stopped people from learning to read in the first world just because it made us wealthier than people who didn't have high literacy levels?

 

[johnmortons]

Should we have stopped people from learning to read in the first world just because it made us wealthier than people who didn't have high literacy levels?

yea, so what? although i think we should be extremely cautious given potentially destructive uses of new technology, nowhere in my post did i say that we should stop technological development.

what i said is that given the extremity of the possibilities discussed here (i mean, immortality, that is a classic characteristic of a "god"), i think there may be similarly extreme social tensions when this technology first becomes available. it is not necessarily something i want to see coming when i am an old fart assuming that i won't live long enough to fully profit from this technology anyway.

imagine being 80 and seeing your society break apart fighting over access to technology, and at the same time having the knowledge that you'll die in a few years whereas the young loudmouths next door might very well live forever.

 

[elemenohpee]

there may be social tensions, there may even be wars over it. Its probably inevitable when you've got something as powerful as this technology. But what else are we going to? Stagnate for the rest of eternity?

 

[mugen]

I guess you must have skipped over my post, because I said in there that I agree with almost everything the transhumanists say, I consider myself one. Did you get confused by the fact that there were question marks in there intended to provoke discussion? If you perceive anyone asking questions about this to be small-minded, I find your post highly ironic. Things will go bad if they get into the hands of people like yourself, who want to dive headfirst into the unknown without even considering the potential problems (which many transhumanists recognize as real problems to be dealt with). Maybe try venturing farther than the summary on wikipedia before you start accusing people of things which you know nothing about.

haha. the only questions you have raised are empty, captious philosophical ones.

what is most amusing is your quaint idea that greater intelligence will lead to greater altruism. ahahhah. *walks off laughing*

 

[qwedsa]

john, my hope is that they will be able to keep me alive (as an old dude) long enough for reverse-aging technology, after which point life will be indefinate

 

[elemenohpee]

haha. the only questions you have raised are empty, captious philosophical ones.

what is most amusing is your quaint idea that greater intelligence will lead to greater altruism. ahahhah. *walks off laughing*

right, because what place do philosophical questions have when we're talking about changing the entire way we think about the concept of humanity? I don't mean to sound like a jackass, but I really doubt that you have the capacity to fully understand the implications of this technology. If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me. You think my idea that greater intelligence will lead to greater altruism is wrong? That's great, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Now why don't you back yours up instead of just walking off?

 

[mugen]

oh i understand the implications. the difference is that i do not regard them of any particular import as i do not regard transhumanism as you do, that is, from the perspective of one who treasures an absurd number of painfully boirgeois normative values that insouciantly reject intellectual honesty and reason.

altruism is, by definition, an injurious act to the altruistic individual. unless you have perverted the definition of intelligence to mean 'stupid, irrational behaviour', then greater intelligence will lead to more rational behaviour, less altruism and more competition for scarce resources as we each try to maximise our own utility, fitness, or whatever.

*chews gum thoughtfully* people like you truly and completely bemuse me. i just cannot imagine how it is that you and your ilk can purport to undertake rigorous intellectual or philosophical analysis while positing such a staggering number of unjustifiable assumptions. don't you ever think to turn your mightly intellect (*sniggers*) towards your inane assumptions and question those? for example, does it not ever occur to you to think 'errm wait a second, why do i care about the welfare of the entirety of homo sapiens sapiens again?'

maa ii. mendoukuse na

 

[qwedsa]

^ 8(

 

[elemenohpee]

Altruism is only stupid and irrational in the context of darwinian evolution. If your perspective is that you need to secure the most resources so that you personally can reproduce, then I can see why you would view philosophical ideas so distastefully. A quote by Albert Einstein comes to mind: "He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice." I present as exhibit A, your posting, and your seeming inablity to grasp such basic concepts as common decency and respect. Have you ever thought for a second that maybe you don't know everything there is to know? Have you ever thought that maybe your massively inflated ego is an artificial construction which has created a dualism you cannot seem to break out of? Why do I care about the welfare of the rest of humanity? There are many reasons, not the least of which is than human beings are social creatures, and it would be hard for any of us to survive independently of each other. Getting into more "intellectual" reasons, I find the entire concept fasninating and I enjoy the phenomena that emerge out of the extreme complexity of human interaction. I realize that with over 6 billion different perspectives on life, there's got to be things I can learn from others. The lsit goes on, maybe the question I would pose to you is, why don;t you care? Because to be honest your view seems a little warped. I'm no psychologist, but your obsession with yourself to the exclusion of the ENTIRE POPULATION OF EARTH seems indicitive of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

 

[mugen]

guh. what a gallingly dull response. didn't i ask you to form views or argue other than by a morass of assumptions and axioms? you see, making statements of ever-so-grand values does not constitute an argument. believing that 'sharing in and advancing the community of man is the meaning of life' might seem to you a fine thing, but it might as well be 'killing all blue eyed infants is the meaning of life', or 'rabbits are actually made of celery and communicate with aliens from the orion belt' for all the cogency of it.

anyway:

a)altruism is always bad. by definition altruism always involves an act which decreases fitness, welfare, utility, and so forth of the individual doing it, to the benefit of some other individual. were it otherwise, it would only be self-interest or 'reciprocal altruism', which is only delayed self-interest. anything other than complete self-interest is, by definition, stupid. what possible reason could i ever have for wanting to make myself worse off?

btw that has nothing to do with darwinian evolution. it has to do with hamiltonian evolution. you knew that though, right chief? i mean, i knew straight away that you had a really strong grasp of evolutionary theory. *laff*

b)philosophical ideas are always distasteful because they are always axiomatic and tautological. you're squealing like a little girl because i don't share your values, but in purely philosophical terms, how can you ever hope to conclusively show me to be wrong? how would you show that altruism is better than self-interest? the only way you can 'prove' me wrong is by making it an axiom of whatever trite system of belief you hold that i am indeed wrong.

happily for me, if i were to follow my philosophy to the letter, i would end up kicking all you dumbshits in the groin as i make my way up the evolutionary and economic ladders of success, while you'd still be poor/stupid/whatever, despite having the great comfort of being able to say 'oh oh but im altruistic!11 that counts doesnt in??'

c)the benefits of society, most obviously specialisation and economies of scale, do not require anything other than self-interest to explain or to be attained.

d)i don't think i'm particularly special. i just don't give a shit about you or anyone else for the sole reason that we are of the same species.

 

[johnmortons]

john, my hope is that they will be able to keep me alive (as an old dude) long enough for reverse-aging technology, after which point life will be indefinate

hehe, yea, well, i hope for that too since i'm still only in my early 20s. but it's going to be pretty hard for us to stay alive long enough for that.

c)the benefits of society, most obviously specialisation and economies of scale, do not require anything other than self-interest to explain or to be attained.

lol, for all your arrogance your grasp of economic theory doesn't extend beyond the most primitive catch phrases of a conservative election brochure. there are plenty of cases in economics where markets fail and purely individual utility maximisation leads to sub-optimal outcomes.

of course, you could define self-interest more broadly as including all actions (i.e. also indirect ones) that will somehow improve your economic situation. still, in that case higher intelligence may arguably increase our ability to recognise such opportunities for cooperation and act accordingly. there's also good case to be made that ruthless, unfettered competition, income inequality etc. harm society as a whole and even decrease living quality for well-off individuals.

that being said, i am also very sceptical about the potential of higher intelligence to increase selfless behaviour. more likely is that the fate of the regular-intelligence folks will be that of the monkeys.

 

[mugen]

lol, for all your arrogance your grasp of economic theory doesn't extend beyond the most primitive catch phrases of a conservative election brochure.

Cute. Actually I have a degree, and it is amusing that you would ascribe a particular political slant to mainstream economics: I wasn't aware that the entire discipline was inherently 'conservative' or that the mainstream discipline can be divided into 'liberal economics' and 'conservative economics'. The things they just forget to teach you at university... *shakes head*

there are plenty of cases in economics where markets fail and purely individual utility maximisation leads to sub-optimal outcomes.

There are few cases of pure market failure. Most forms of market failure assert that a model has failed in theory when in fact it has only failed in practice, or assert that a failure to fulfil some ideological, non-economic condition represents a failure.

of course, you could define self-interest more broadly as including all actions (i.e. also indirect ones) that will somehow improve your economic situation. still, in that case higher intelligence may arguably increase our ability to recognise such opportunities for cooperation and act accordingly.

That Utopian ideal of co-operation never eventuates while there exists self-interested individuals or the potential for self-interested individuals within a population. I am not aware of any modelling which has shown a population composed entirely of co-operative individuals to be stable with those conditions.

there's also good case to be made that ruthless, unfettered competition, income inequality etc. harm society as a whole and even decrease living quality for well-off individuals.

Make the case. Do not speculate.

that being said, i am also very sceptical about the potential of higher intelligence to increase selfless behaviour. more likely is that the fate of the regular-intelligence folks will be that of the monkeys.

Why would it? Economic theory and models show us in theory, to be then confirmed in studies of the natural world, that it is the forces of selfish behaviour and competition which yield optimal outcomes.

 

[johnmortons]

Cute. Actually I have a degree,

yea, big deal, so do i (in econs). what's your degree in, misplaced pompousness? 8(

t is amusing that you would ascribe a particular political slant to mainstream economics: I wasn't aware that the entire discipline was inherently 'conservative'

no problem. i am glad to inform you that the era when pure neoclassical theory reigned supreme and was regarded as "mainstream" is over since a few decades. pointing out the existence of market failure is not to "ascribe a particular politial slant to mainstream economics" - denying it is.

Most forms of market failure assert that a model has failed in theory when in fact it has only failed in practice, or assert that a failure to fulfil some ideological, non-economic condition represents a failure.

a model that fails in practice has only limited value. what is a beautiful theoretical model worth if it does not hold up in the real world? very little. theory is tested against reality, not the other way around.

and what do you mean by "most forms of market failure assert"? market failures assert nothing. they just are. i assume what you are trying to say is "most economists asserting the existence of market failures etc.". but you are wrong. market failure is widely recognised in mainstream economics and every basic undergraduate course will teach you that pure competition and individual utility maximisation leads to sub-optimal outcomes in "pure economic" terms of efficiency and utility maximisation in a number of very important cases (see public good theory for example). this can be shown theoretically and is observed in practice.

that Utopian ideal of co-operation never eventuates while there exists self-interested individuals or the potential for self-interested individuals within a population.

what are you talking about? i am not speaking of utopian ideals requiring perfect cooperation in every respect. every public road built is a (rough) example of what i mean. an individual living at the side of the road may not contribute voluntarily to its cost if he was strictly maximising his individual utility, for instance because he would try to let the others pay for it and then use it for free. if everyone did this, no money would be raised, no road built and everyone is worse off. strict individual utility maximisation then leads to a suboptimal outcome. taxation solves this problem by forcing everyone to pay, or to formulate positively: to assure everyone that everyone else also pays, which allows the road to be built and makes everyone better off.

thus the argument that a less intelligent society may not recognise this and continue to live without road, whereas a society composed of smarter individuals does recognise it, organises itself at least partly cooperatively through a state, introduces taxation, builds the road and increases the utility of everyone.

Why would it? Economic theory and models show us in theory, to be then confirmed in studies of the natural world, that it is the forces of selfish behaviour and competition which yield optimal outcomes.

have you even read what i wrote? i was agreeing with you in general, but (earlier) leaving the possibility of some increased cooperation for the achievement of joint optimal outcomes open. it's not the 1970s anymore, read some modern econs book already.

 

[elemenohpee]

guh. what a gallingly dull response. didn't i ask you to form views or argue other than by a morass of assumptions and axioms? you see, making statements of ever-so-grand values does not constitute an argument. believing that 'sharing in and advancing the community of man is the meaning of life' might seem to you a fine thing, but it might as well be 'killing all blue eyed infants is the meaning of life', or 'rabbits are actually made of celery and communicate with aliens from the orion belt' for all the cogency of it.

anyway:

a)altruism is always bad. by definition altruism always involves an act which decreases fitness, welfare, utility, and so forth of the individual doing it, to the benefit of some other individual. were it otherwise, it would only be self-interest or 'reciprocal altruism', which is only delayed self-interest. anything other than complete self-interest is, by definition, stupid. what possible reason could i ever have for wanting to make myself worse off?

Is it bad when you are benefitting from another's altruism? Again, just because you cannot get over your ego doesn't mean that no one else can. What DO you think the purpose of life is? Is it just to pass on your genes? Are you going to care for your kids? Once you've reproduced, are you just going to kill yourself?

btw that has nothing to do with darwinian evolution. it has to do with hamiltonian evolution. you knew that though, right chief? i mean, i knew straight away that you had a really strong grasp of evolutionary theory. *laff*

I've never even heard of Hamiltonian evolution, but from what I can gather from a google search its some advanced physics concept. Maybe you could explain how it applies to this discussion?

b)philosophical ideas are always distasteful because they are always axiomatic and tautological. you're squealing like a little girl because i don't share your values, but in purely philosophical terms, how can you ever hope to conclusively show me to be wrong? how would you show that altruism is better than self-interest? the only way you can 'prove' me wrong is by making it an axiom of whatever trite system of belief you hold that i am indeed wrong.

happily for me, if i were to follow my philosophy to the letter, i would end up kicking all you dumbshits in the groin as i make my way up the evolutionary and economic ladders of success, while you'd still be poor/stupid/whatever, despite having the great comfort of being able to say 'oh oh but im altruistic!11 that counts doesnt in??'

You're right, I can never prove you wrong. But guess what, you can't prove me wrong either. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but people have different perspectives on things, and are each right in their own way. I'm not denying that altruism is bad if we were only worried about passing on our genes. I'm saying that there is more to life than that. Your axiom is that reproducing is the be-all and end-all of human existence. Well guess what, I reject that. Now prove me wrong.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Altruism is good because our planet needs it. Period. The more people think like mugen, the closer we all are to mutually assured destruction. People who are capable of showing compassion to others simply because they're fellow humans -- or even better fellow Earthlings -- have a survival advantage in this age of overpopulation.

Peoples who are able to cohere easily and see the advantage to every individual among them having the right to transhuman advance X will win out in the survival race over peoples who bicker among themselves and see a few at the top hoard the technology. I could easily see Japan or the EU constitutionally guaranteeing every Japanese / European the right to transhuman technology X, and in so doing having a huge collective advantage. I'm not so sure about the USA, wouldn't be surprised either way.

By the way, what I just described is already happening in today's world, albiet with technologies humbler than transhuman ones.

 

[socko]

Transhumanism -- yeah, I would get some enhancements. 1st would be a septal implant to directly stimulate the pleasure centers of my brain.
Altruism -- Altruism may have a genetic basis. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is a proponent of the idea of gene-centered evolution (the Selfish Gene, 1976). The gene, not the individual, is the principal unite of selection in evolution.
A colaborator, WD Hamilton, proposed that altruism is genetically-based. Altruism is a method of inclusive fitness and "kin selection." They look at atruism as a mechanism by which genes (not individiuals) preserve themselves and reproduce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
A practical reason for being altruistic, or at least put on the pretense being altruistic, is that it's a lot easier to get along with others and function in a group if you're nice to people. People with obvious chips on their shoulders like mugen must have been beaten up a lot when they were in high school.
Hamiltonian Evolution -- What is this? I only have a populist understanding of evolution, but I know Mugen has fabricated this.